Previous Comments

I just added this review on the Amazon listing for ‘Climate Cover Up’: For 12 years I have worked for a BC-based company (Blue Energy Canada) working to commercialize a non-emitting renewable energy technology based on tidal power and I am well-acquainted with climate change science and both the obstructions and gateways that are created, in Canada and abroad, to discourage or enable emerging technologies. Of course these obstructions come in many forms, from government intransigence to organizational monkey-wrenching and we’ve seen it all, especially recently.

In any event, and as a former journalist, too, I felt much kinship with the ground covered and the scams illuminated by James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore in ‘Climate Cover Up’ and page by page I felt vindicated for the rancor I had felt welling up repeatedly in the past dozen years.

The book is accurate and compelling and it will anger you as much it is informs you. We ARE being duped by various ‘stink tanks’ accepting money from petro and coal industries and brazen individuals who know no depths to which they will sink to help foster the climate change Denialist cover-up.

Overall, I highly recommend this book as a jaw-dropping read connecting many important dots in this ongoing battle for our perceptions. - Michael Maser, British Columbia

I didn’t wait till Christmas. I bought it last week, and read it in two sittings. Now I have to go back through and make some margin notes. I appreciated the Canadian content of the book. Too often we hear about the foibles of the states and not enough about our own PR spin-machine (not to insult PR people in general–till you mentioned the role of PR in your book I had assumed it was all about telling lies for the client).

“The strongest evidence yet that the rise in atmospheric CO2 emissions continues to outstrip the ability of the world’s natural ‘sinks’ to absorb carbon is published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience.

“An international team of researchers under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project reports that over the last 50 years the average fraction of global CO2 emissions that remained in the atmosphere each year was around 43 per cent - the rest was absorbed by the Earth’s carbon sinks on land and in the oceans. During this time this fraction has likely increased from 40 per cent to 45 per cent, suggesting a decrease in the efficiency of the natural sinks. The team brings evidence that the sinks are responding to climate change and variability.

“The scientists report a 29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008 (the latest year for which figures are available), and that in spite of the global economic downturn emissions increased by 2 per cent during 2008. The use of coal as a fuel has now surpassed oil and developing countries now emit more greenhouse gases than developed countries – with a quarter of their growth in emissions accounted for by increased trade with the West.”

Canada in Copenhagen: It may have been great public relations but it is poor public policy

by James Hoggan

“It is an excellent accord and is good for the environment, and it is good for Canada. In terms of Canada, this agreement really achieves all of the negotiating objectives we set going over to Copenhagen.”

What a great quote. What a great piece of positioning. After a tough two weeks of hammering out a deal at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Canada’s sometimes embattled Environment Minister finds his inner optimism and says: Score one for the good guys. It kinda makes you proud to be Canadian.

But should it? Is it enough that Prentice now declares victory? Is it enough that Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a hand-picked group of reporters on Friday night that the accord is “realistic” and that Canada is “comfortable with it”? Are we being spun?

Of course we are. If you look closely at the language coming out of Copenhagen, you will see that nearly all the conversation has been about politics and public relations, and very little has been about science or the environment.

… It’s this kind of cleverness that gives both politicians and public relations people a bad name. So, for the time being, Harper and company may pass the Copenhagen mid-term, but they are leading us all to disaster on the final exam.

(by)Steve: I’ve asked proponents for a few years now to provide an engineering quality derivation showing how doubled CO2 leads to a big problem. Thus far, I haven’t been able to get anyone to give me such a reference. Gerry North, a prominent climate scientist, has made fun of me for asking such a question, but maybe you’d have better luck with him than me. Unlike many readers, I do not presume that such a derivation is impossible or even that it doesn’t exist. If you can locate one, please bring it to my attention.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.